FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Electromagnetics
New Inductance
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 7 [97 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Author Message
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:39 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:34:56 GMT, "The Real Chris" <me@myself.com>
Gave us:

Quote:
By the way Faraday said the motor force is between the windings.

No, he didn't.

Quote:
This is
similar.

No, it isn't.

Quote:
The electronic interaction in a transformer is between the
windings. The closer they are the better.

Wrong. Interwinding capacitance becomes an issue.

AGAIN, I have made transformers, and so has the rest of the world
where the secondary MUST be segregated from the primary. They have
OVER 2kV isolation, and they are just as efficient as a transformer
where the windings are placed over each other.

Quote:

Try two straight parallel wires in a resin filled with iron filings carrying
alternating curent. It is still a 1:1 transformer. No bother with flux path.

You're an idiot. A loop is REQUIRED. Two, in fact for
transformers.
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:19 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

Dear Phat Bytestard:

"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote in
message news:v43rb21ei8ejqgdp3j7segksj5dmr8am99@4ax.com...
....
Quote:
You're an idiot. A loop is REQUIRED. Two,
in fact for transformers.

Every rule has an exception (even this one?)...

An autotransformer is a transformer with one winding ("loop").
;>)

David A. Smith
Back to top
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:54 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:19:37 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> Gave us:

Quote:
Dear Phat Bytestard:

"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote in
message news:v43rb21ei8ejqgdp3j7segksj5dmr8am99@4ax.com...
...
You're an idiot. A loop is REQUIRED. Two,
in fact for transformers.

Every rule has an exception (even this one?)...

An autotransformer is a transformer with one winding ("loop").
;>)

A "loop" is a turn in this case, not a winding. He stated that two

straight wires will work, and they will not.

Quote:

More accurately, in an autotransformer a portion of the same winding

effectively acts as part of both the primary and secondary winding.
Still requires a core, and more than one turn (loop).

Even with only two loops, a 1 to 1 transformer can be made in this
configuration.

There are no single loop autotransformers (or transformers of any
kind). That would be an inductor. The taps cannot be on the same turn
(loop).
Back to top
Richard Herring
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 194

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:52 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

In message <o%evg.4127$8j3.3075@twister.nyroc.rr.com>, daestrom
<daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> writes
Quote:

"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote in message
news:jtnob25bdgd0h1mf4u0b5qr10c94u4v91p@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:30:32 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
paul@hovnanian.com> Gave us:

Phat Bytestard wrote:

On 17 Jul 2006 07:36:36 -0700, "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca
Gave us:

So I think the OP raises some interesting issues
and has advanced thoughts about that.
Regards

Nope. He is merely making s**t up as he goes along.

Remember, this is the twit that wants us to place "some flux" in an
envelope and send it to him.

Would that be magnetic flux?
If so, it's what they put in iron-cored solder ;-)

Quote:

When I used to work for Boeing, these were the guys we'd send out to
fetch a bucket of prop wash.

I was only fooled once. A co-worker gave me a small screw with
buggered up threads on it, and told me to go ask the supervisor to
"cram" it, stating that he had a screw crammer that would straighten
out the threads. Turns out such tools do exist, but the boss, and the
boys had a different agenda with me.


As sailors in the Navy, we used all sorts of tricks like that on the newbie.

Some of the more famous...
1) Fetch me some relative bearing grease
2) I need ten feet of water line.
3) We drew straws and you have the mail bouy watch.

It's endless...


A tin of elbow grease.
A long weight
A long stand

--
Richard Herring
Back to top
The Real Chris
science forum addict


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:48 pm    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

The straight wire does need a connection to a power supply and the other to
a meter. It all goes in circles you know thats why it called circuit theory.
Not done waveguids yet?
"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote in message
news:9a7rb29illd9h4to0mn09djh8tne6iuvlu@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:19:37 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> Gave us:

Dear Phat Bytestard:

"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote in
message news:v43rb21ei8ejqgdp3j7segksj5dmr8am99@4ax.com...
...
You're an idiot. A loop is REQUIRED. Two,
in fact for transformers.

Every rule has an exception (even this one?)...

An autotransformer is a transformer with one winding ("loop").
;>)

A "loop" is a turn in this case, not a winding. He stated that two
straight wires will work, and they will not.


More accurately, in an autotransformer a portion of the same winding
effectively acts as part of both the primary and secondary winding.
Still requires a core, and more than one turn (loop).

Even with only two loops, a 1 to 1 transformer can be made in this
configuration.

There are no single loop autotransformers (or transformers of any
kind). That would be an inductor. The taps cannot be on the same turn
(loop).
Back to top
The Real Chris
science forum addict


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:49 pm    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

He did. Have look.

"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote in message
news:v43rb21ei8ejqgdp3j7segksj5dmr8am99@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:34:56 GMT, "The Real Chris" <me@myself.com
Gave us:

By the way Faraday said the motor force is between the windings.

No, he didn't.

This is
similar.

No, it isn't.

The electronic interaction in a transformer is between the
windings. The closer they are the better.

Wrong. Interwinding capacitance becomes an issue.

AGAIN, I have made transformers, and so has the rest of the world
where the secondary MUST be segregated from the primary. They have
OVER 2kV isolation, and they are just as efficient as a transformer
where the windings are placed over each other.


Try two straight parallel wires in a resin filled with iron filings
carrying
alternating curent. It is still a 1:1 transformer. No bother with flux
path.

You're an idiot. A loop is REQUIRED. Two, in fact for
transformers.
Back to top
The Real Chris
science forum addict


Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 8:53 pm    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

They make the wires appear to themselves closer together by slowing down the
photons.

Don't you know any new electricity?

You could use a dielectric like barium titanate, or possibly a
ferro-electret. Or a ferrite.

Chris.

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <paul@hovnanian.com> wrote in message
news:44BD8A31.BF53EA05@hovnanian.com...
Quote:
The Real Chris wrote:

By the way Faraday said the motor force is between the windings. This is
similar. The electronic interaction in a transformer is between the
windings. The closer they are the better.

Try two straight parallel wires in a resin filled with iron filings
carrying
alternating curent. It is still a 1:1 transformer. No bother with flux
path.


What are the iron filings for?


--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.
Back to top
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:11 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

The Real Chris wrote:
Quote:

They make the wires appear to themselves closer together by slowing down the
photons.

Duct tape should do just as well. In fact, better. Photons can get
between the filings.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Misery loves company, especially this one.
Back to top
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
science forum beginner


Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:15 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

The Real Chris wrote:
Quote:

By the way Faraday said the motor force is between the windings.

Cite the source of that Faraday quote.

Furthermore, what about motors with only ONE winding?

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Relax, its only ones and zeros!
Back to top
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:31 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:48:46 GMT, "The Real Chris" <me@myself.com>
Gave us:

Quote:
The straight wire does need a connection to a power supply and the other to
a meter. It all goes in circles you know thats why it called circuit theory.
Not done waveguids yet?

Look, you TOP POSTING USENET RETARD! (get a clue there too, boy)

A wire placed next to another will NOT act like a transformer. A
transformer must be able to make power, and have a high efficiency.

Some stray signal mutually passed from a current carrying wire over
to another proximal wire is NOT a transformer, idiot.

You need turns (plural), as well as a core.
Back to top
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:36 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:11:32 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<paul@hovnanian.com> Gave us:

Quote:
The Real Chris wrote:

They make the wires appear to themselves closer together by slowing down the
photons.

Duct tape should do just as well. In fact, better. Photons can get
between the filings.

Jeez, don't egg the boy on.
Back to top
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 2835

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 2:52 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

Dear Phat Bytestard:

"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote in
message news:hkqtb29kuvbnmjrqcsdtap5gg4j5sc87sv@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:48:46 GMT, "The Real Chris"
me@myself.com
Gave us:

The straight wire does need a connection to a power
supply and the other to a meter.

.... which meter has another connection to the other polarity
terminal on the power supply, forming a loop.

Quote:
It all goes in circles you know thats why it called
circuit theory. Not done waveguids yet?

Not a waveguide with only one end connected to the power supply.
I think that is called either an "antenna" or "lightning" if that
is the case.

Quote:
Look, you TOP POSTING USENET RETARD! (get a clue
there too, boy)

A wire placed next to another will NOT act like a
transformer.

A transformer induces a current flow in a separate circuit, with
a current flow in the driven circuit. Lightning striking a tree
outside induces a current in oriented-similarly-to-the-tree
wiring, thereby burning out serial I/O chips. Nothing says the
circuit on either side has to be "closed", only that current
flows hoever transiently.

Quote:
A transformer must be able to make power, and have
a high efficiency.

It is still a transformer if it makes no significant power, and
is very inefficient. Search on "current transformer" (aka.
"current donut").

Quote:
Some stray signal mutually passed from a current
carrying wire over to another proximal wire is NOT a
transformer, idiot.

Right, this is called "crosstalk", and cannot be relied on for a
paycheck... unless you find it and remove it.

Quote:
You need turns (plural), as well as a core.

"air core transformer" 12,200 hits
"vacuum core transformer" 0 hits
"coreless transformer" 460 hits

"Always in motion is the future." -- Yoda

Don't argue from a "power magnetics" perspective. The Universe
of electronics is bigger than that.

David A. Smith
Back to top
Don Kelly
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 166

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:23 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

----------------------------
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1153202895.978168.226640@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Don Kelly wrote:
----------------------------
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1153146996.298346.270480@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Mr. Kelly, I've been doing electrical engineering
since the 60's, what I'm curious about is the
*fundamental* physical science. It may surprise
you but the answers to the question of relating
mechanical energy conversion to electrical
energy, such as in a generator, are an important
issue in the General Theory of Relativity.
A similiar problem exists in a simple transformer,
that is, is it quantized or a continuum field effect?
So I think the OP raises some interesting issues
and has advanced thoughts about that.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

Don Kelly wrote:
----------------------------
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1153026113.273939.244240@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Don Kelly wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1152999190.140186.287000@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
...
Sounds good to me, I think a transformer
is basically a "quantum mechanical" device,
if it's examined in detail. I think your ideas
are very reasonable and advanced.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker


What nonsense. Increase frequency, reduce core flux for a given
voltage
and
number of turns , so make a smaller core at the original flux
density.
Nothing to do with Chris's rubbish. Much to do with Faraday.
Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca

Your moving *power* from the primary to
the secondary coil, power is quantized.
For simple electrical applications you
don't need to know or understand that.

Don, you seem knowledgeable enough
to even model a 40 watt light bulb to see
what I'm getting at. Keep the rate of photons
emitted constant, but double their frequency,
then your output power would be 80 watts.
Regards
Ken S. Tucker

1)What photons? Their presence in transformer action, "virtual" or
not,
is a
conjecture which requires a leap of faith without justification. Does
that
mean that increasing the temperature of the transformer increases the
power
transfer due to increased photon emission? [no]. Can one make a
transformer
such that any possible photon path between windings is blocked but the
transformer still works? [yes]
2)Note that doubling the supply frequency does not increase the power
transfer in a transformer. The effect of frequency on any given
transformer
is well known and covered in many texts.
3) As I said before, from Faraday, you can come up with (as does any
basic
text on Electromagnetic machines) a relationship between voltage,
magnetic
flux, frequency and turns. No photons needed. Note that the
relationship
does NOT involve power or need to invoke (incorrectly) quantum
mechanics.
4) Considering the characteristics of the magnetic core, then it is
also
easy to show that there is an ampere turn balance. Taking this into
account with (3), you end up with a power transfer relationship which
,
lo
and behold, incidentally agrees with conservation of energy. Do these
non-quantum approaches work? [extremely well].
Are they simpler to use? [very much so].

Quantum mechanics is all very well but there are areas, and this is
one,
where this tool is not appropriate.
--

Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer

I'm uncertain if your questions are rhetorical,
in your post below, if so perhaps place them as ?!
OTOH repost your questions in a fashion that
is clearly non-rhetorical.

At the "microscopic" level, quantum mechanics is applicable. However its
usefulness at the macroscopic level is very questionable. I would suggest
that there is a point where continuum mechanics are needed to handle the
problem in that one is dealing with extremely many particles at different
energy levels and cannot distinguish between them but where the overall
behaviour can be well represented by continuum mechanics. Is the
magnetic
field any more imaginary than a virtual photon? I have doubts. How much
have you done using circuit theory? Why would you use it instead of EM
theory? Why isn't EM theory used in the design and analysis of
electromechanical machines?- it can be done and I did use it
successfully
for analysis/testing of a special motor in my PhD thesis work at U of
Illinois. The answer to the questions is that there is, generally, no
need to do so- the first order approximations of a quasi static situation
work extremely well at the frequencies involved and dimensions well below
1/4 wavelength. I have been involved professionally in Electrical
Engineering since the 50's. Admittedly that has produced some biases-
among
which, looking for a complex explanation where a simple one suffices, is
not
necessarily productive. Note that one thing that I presented to Chris was
an
alternative but classical approach dealing with the interaction between
moving charges, leading to the Lorentz force equation (ignoring the
electrostatic term for convenience). This he has completely ignored.

I think it's an issue, not the poster I'm focused on.

If he
had given it the consideration that I gave his earlier statements (or
rather
those of his former prof -which make sense but provide nothing new) and
shown error- then I would not be so dismissive. Also part of the
dismissiveness is the statements he made about a photon shield around the
windings of a transformer- it turns out that apparently he may not have
used
a closed shield or shorted turn-that makes quite a difference -but also
has
no data indicating that there is any of the assumed reduction in losses.
Sorry, one can only suspend disbelief for so long.

I also note that General Relativity as expressed by Einstein, has no
relationship to quantum mechanics (which he didn't believe in) and
quantum
mechanics is hopeless when trying to look at large scale phenoma in
galaxies. In fact there likely is some unified theory (note "theory)
which
explains it all. String theory seems to be the "in" thing.
Chris's contribution is that he has jogged some discussion and thought-
no
more.
You are more of a gentleman than I am.

Maybe, GR assumes a continuum to interconvert
Mechanical and Electrical energy given by that
looks like the covariant derivatives,

T;w= 0 = M;w + E;w

where M;w = - E;w and T;w=0 is conservation.

I'm wondering if M;w =0 but not constant.
Regards
Ken

Yes some of the questions are rhetorical. You know the limits of circuit
theory. You know the advantages of it where it is valid.
As far as a magnetic field being dependent on moving electric fields - no
problem (in fact this is a common derivation) Now the interaction of charged
particles may well be due to particles -i.e the virtual photon which is:
a)not observable, b)an artifact of perturbation theory, c)may not even
exist except as a useful QED technique. I have no problem with this. As to
magnetic fields existing-they do and can be measured and analysed. The fact
that the effect called magnetism is caused by something else doesn't make it
unreal. I also note that some discussions of virtual photons try to explain
them in terms of waves, simplifying by ignoring magnetic moments. In
addition several quantum mechanics effects involve, directly, the use of
magnetic flux density-why?- because it is useful.

Now, as to electromechanical energy conversion, assuming that what you imply
by M;w and E:w as mechanical and electrical energy then one approach used
in the analysis of electromagnetic devices such as motors/transformer and
relays is conservation of energy along with the idea of virtual work (a form
of perturbation) .
Then :

change of mech energy out =f*delta(x) =change of electrical energy in +
change in magnetic energy stored +change in losses.

White & Woodson, of MIT in "Electromechanical Energy Conversion" dealt with
generalised machine models, involving use of the Hamiltonian and coordinate
transforms. Both electrostatic and electromagnetic conversion were
considered. Much of this was picked up by later authors. Gabriel Kron also
wrote a very difficult to follow text using tensor analysis. While these
authors were well aware of GR and Quantum mechanics, they did not deal with
them because there was no need to do so.

Certainly, in terms of semiconductors, quantum theory and energy levels are
important but for typical machines, classical electrodynamics is quite
adequate. It may well be that for nanomachines, this is not the case.

However, you appear to want to deal with GR and energy conversion- The
relationsips between GR and classical electrodynamics probably cover it.

However, any exposure that I have had to GR, QED etc was quite a while ago
and I cannot and will not claim any expertise in those areas. Will I learn
more? Possibly, because of curiosity. Will I argue with the Real Chris-
probably not--not worth the effort.
--

Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer


>
Back to top
Don Kelly
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 166

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:33 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

Unfortunately, Chris

--

Don Kelly dhky@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote in message
news:v43rb21ei8ejqgdp3j7segksj5dmr8am99@4ax.com...
Quote:
On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:34:56 GMT, "The Real Chris" <me@myself.com
Gave us:

By the way Faraday said the motor force is between the windings.

No, he didn't.

This is
similar.

No, it isn't.

The electronic interaction in a transformer is between the
windings. The closer they are the better.

Wrong. Interwinding capacitance becomes an issue.

AGAIN, I have made transformers, and so has the rest of the world
where the secondary MUST be segregated from the primary. They have
OVER 2kV isolation, and they are just as efficient as a transformer
where the windings are placed over each other.


Try two straight parallel wires in a resin filled with iron filings
carrying
alternating curent. It is still a 1:1 transformer. No bother with flux
path.

You're an idiot. A loop is REQUIRED. Two, in fact for
transformers.
Back to top
Phat Bytestard
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:35 am    Post subject: Re: New Inductance Reply with quote

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 19:52:42 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N:
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com> Gave us:

Quote:
Dear Phat Bytestard:

"Phat Bytestard" <phatbytestard@getinmahharddrive.org> wrote in
message news:hkqtb29kuvbnmjrqcsdtap5gg4j5sc87sv@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:48:46 GMT, "The Real Chris"
me@myself.com
Gave us:

The straight wire does need a connection to a power
supply and the other to a meter.

... which meter has another connection to the other polarity
terminal on the power supply, forming a loop.

I didn't write that. Learn how to quote properly, and respond to the
right post.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 5 of 7 [97 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:17 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Electromagnetics
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Inductance of a Straight Wire - Follow-up abukosky@muthco.com Electromagnetics 1 Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:37 pm
No new posts Is the "self-inductance of straight wire" an ill-defined ... Jean-Rene David Electromagnetics 22 Mon May 08, 2006 4:17 pm
No new posts Negative Inductance jclause Physics 3 Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:35 pm
No new posts Thermal Inductance s.morra Research 6 Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:11 pm
No new posts Thermal Inductance s.morra Physics 5 Tue Aug 16, 2005 8:22 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1288s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0958s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]